Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 741

control, N = 371

treatment, N = 371

p-value2

age

74

50.70 ± 12.55 (25 - 74)

50.31 ± 13.37 (25 - 74)

51.09 ± 11.84 (31 - 72)

0.791

gender

74

0.802

f

51 (69%)

25 (68%)

26 (70%)

m

23 (31%)

12 (32%)

11 (30%)

occupation

74

0.884

day_training

2 (2.7%)

2 (5.4%)

0 (0%)

full_time

7 (9.5%)

4 (11%)

3 (8.1%)

homemaker

6 (8.1%)

3 (8.1%)

3 (8.1%)

other

2 (2.7%)

0 (0%)

2 (5.4%)

part_time

14 (19%)

7 (19%)

7 (19%)

retired

15 (20%)

7 (19%)

8 (22%)

self_employ

3 (4.1%)

1 (2.7%)

2 (5.4%)

student

1 (1.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (2.7%)

t_and_e

2 (2.7%)

1 (2.7%)

1 (2.7%)

unemploy

22 (30%)

12 (32%)

10 (27%)

marital

74

0.769

cohabitation

1 (1.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (2.7%)

divore

9 (12%)

6 (16%)

3 (8.1%)

married

16 (22%)

7 (19%)

9 (24%)

none

42 (57%)

21 (57%)

21 (57%)

seperation

3 (4.1%)

2 (5.4%)

1 (2.7%)

widow

3 (4.1%)

1 (2.7%)

2 (5.4%)

edu

74

0.954

bachelor

22 (30%)

9 (24%)

13 (35%)

diploma

13 (18%)

8 (22%)

5 (14%)

hd_ad

3 (4.1%)

2 (5.4%)

1 (2.7%)

postgraduate

6 (8.1%)

3 (8.1%)

3 (8.1%)

primary

5 (6.8%)

2 (5.4%)

3 (8.1%)

secondary_1_3

8 (11%)

4 (11%)

4 (11%)

secondary_4_5

15 (20%)

8 (22%)

7 (19%)

secondary_6_7

2 (2.7%)

1 (2.7%)

1 (2.7%)

fam_income

74

0.932

10001_12000

4 (5.4%)

1 (2.7%)

3 (8.1%)

12001_14000

4 (5.4%)

2 (5.4%)

2 (5.4%)

14001_16000

5 (6.8%)

2 (5.4%)

3 (8.1%)

16001_18000

2 (2.7%)

1 (2.7%)

1 (2.7%)

18001_20000

4 (5.4%)

3 (8.1%)

1 (2.7%)

20001_above

12 (16%)

6 (16%)

6 (16%)

2001_4000

10 (14%)

7 (19%)

3 (8.1%)

4001_6000

10 (14%)

4 (11%)

6 (16%)

6001_8000

7 (9.5%)

4 (11%)

3 (8.1%)

8001_10000

7 (9.5%)

3 (8.1%)

4 (11%)

below_2000

9 (12%)

4 (11%)

5 (14%)

medication

74

64 (86%)

33 (89%)

31 (84%)

0.496

onset_duration

74

15.35 ± 11.44 (0 - 56)

16.67 ± 12.76 (1 - 56)

14.03 ± 9.94 (0 - 35)

0.324

onset_age

74

35.35 ± 14.02 (14 - 64)

33.64 ± 13.39 (14 - 58)

37.06 ± 14.60 (15 - 64)

0.297

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 741

control, N = 371

treatment, N = 371

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

74

3.14 ± 1.22 (1 - 5)

3.11 ± 1.26 (1 - 5)

3.16 ± 1.19 (1 - 5)

0.850

recovery_stage_b

74

18.01 ± 2.60 (9 - 23)

17.95 ± 2.66 (9 - 23)

18.08 ± 2.59 (13 - 23)

0.825

ras_confidence

74

30.42 ± 4.75 (19 - 43)

29.89 ± 4.19 (19 - 40)

30.95 ± 5.26 (20 - 43)

0.344

ras_willingness

74

12.14 ± 1.96 (7 - 15)

11.92 ± 1.85 (9 - 15)

12.35 ± 2.07 (7 - 15)

0.346

ras_goal

74

17.57 ± 3.00 (12 - 24)

17.49 ± 2.93 (12 - 24)

17.65 ± 3.10 (12 - 24)

0.818

ras_reliance

74

13.18 ± 2.80 (8 - 20)

12.97 ± 2.58 (8 - 18)

13.38 ± 3.03 (8 - 20)

0.537

ras_domination

74

9.99 ± 2.30 (3 - 15)

10.51 ± 2.06 (6 - 15)

9.46 ± 2.42 (3 - 14)

0.048

symptom

74

30.14 ± 9.80 (14 - 56)

31.24 ± 9.60 (14 - 52)

29.03 ± 10.00 (15 - 56)

0.334

slof_work

74

22.80 ± 4.90 (10 - 30)

22.68 ± 4.44 (15 - 30)

22.92 ± 5.39 (10 - 30)

0.833

slof_relationship

74

25.82 ± 6.01 (11 - 35)

25.51 ± 6.17 (13 - 35)

26.14 ± 5.92 (11 - 35)

0.660

satisfaction

74

20.77 ± 6.83 (5 - 32)

19.22 ± 6.44 (5 - 29)

22.32 ± 6.94 (5 - 32)

0.050

mhc_emotional

74

11.20 ± 3.84 (3 - 18)

10.70 ± 3.41 (3 - 17)

11.70 ± 4.22 (4 - 18)

0.266

mhc_social

74

14.86 ± 5.47 (6 - 30)

15.16 ± 5.48 (7 - 30)

14.57 ± 5.51 (6 - 26)

0.643

mhc_psychological

74

22.28 ± 6.08 (6 - 36)

21.76 ± 5.69 (10 - 36)

22.81 ± 6.48 (6 - 36)

0.460

resilisnce

74

16.62 ± 4.53 (6 - 27)

16.32 ± 4.38 (6 - 24)

16.92 ± 4.72 (7 - 27)

0.576

social_provision

74

13.73 ± 2.98 (5 - 20)

13.30 ± 2.49 (8 - 20)

14.16 ± 3.37 (5 - 20)

0.214

els_value_living

74

17.28 ± 2.91 (5 - 25)

16.65 ± 2.34 (12 - 22)

17.92 ± 3.30 (5 - 25)

0.060

els_life_fulfill

74

12.82 ± 3.32 (4 - 20)

11.81 ± 3.04 (5 - 17)

13.84 ± 3.31 (4 - 20)

0.008

els

74

30.11 ± 5.61 (9 - 45)

28.46 ± 4.44 (20 - 36)

31.76 ± 6.21 (9 - 45)

0.010

social_connect

74

27.09 ± 9.47 (8 - 48)

27.95 ± 8.31 (8 - 45)

26.24 ± 10.55 (8 - 48)

0.443

shs_agency

74

14.53 ± 4.94 (3 - 24)

13.84 ± 4.52 (3 - 21)

15.22 ± 5.30 (3 - 24)

0.233

shs_pathway

74

16.62 ± 3.98 (4 - 24)

16.11 ± 3.81 (8 - 24)

17.14 ± 4.14 (4 - 23)

0.270

shs

74

31.15 ± 8.47 (7 - 47)

29.95 ± 7.97 (13 - 45)

32.35 ± 8.89 (7 - 47)

0.224

esteem

74

12.64 ± 1.52 (10 - 18)

12.86 ± 1.55 (10 - 18)

12.41 ± 1.48 (10 - 16)

0.196

mlq_search

74

14.91 ± 3.30 (3 - 21)

14.84 ± 3.09 (6 - 21)

14.97 ± 3.54 (3 - 21)

0.862

mlq_presence

74

13.49 ± 4.08 (3 - 21)

13.41 ± 3.50 (5 - 20)

13.57 ± 4.64 (3 - 21)

0.866

mlq

74

28.39 ± 6.56 (6 - 42)

28.24 ± 5.79 (12 - 40)

28.54 ± 7.32 (6 - 42)

0.847

empower

74

19.54 ± 4.09 (6 - 28)

19.08 ± 3.71 (11 - 24)

20.00 ± 4.43 (6 - 28)

0.337

ismi_resistance

74

14.68 ± 2.70 (5 - 20)

14.32 ± 2.21 (11 - 19)

15.03 ± 3.10 (5 - 20)

0.266

ismi_discrimation

74

11.26 ± 3.19 (5 - 19)

12.22 ± 2.79 (5 - 18)

10.30 ± 3.31 (5 - 19)

0.009

sss_affective

74

9.92 ± 3.78 (3 - 18)

10.43 ± 3.44 (3 - 18)

9.41 ± 4.08 (3 - 18)

0.246

sss_behavior

74

9.51 ± 3.99 (3 - 18)

10.27 ± 3.96 (3 - 18)

8.76 ± 3.93 (3 - 18)

0.104

sss_cognitive

74

8.24 ± 3.96 (3 - 18)

8.59 ± 4.15 (3 - 18)

7.89 ± 3.78 (3 - 18)

0.449

sss

74

27.68 ± 10.88 (9 - 54)

29.30 ± 10.41 (9 - 54)

26.05 ± 11.23 (9 - 54)

0.202

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.11

0.198

2.72, 3.50

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.054

0.280

-0.495, 0.603

0.847

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.162

0.287

-0.400, 0.724

0.574

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.131

0.406

-0.664, 0.926

0.748

Pseudo R square

0.010

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.9

0.437

17.1, 18.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.135

0.618

-1.08, 1.35

0.827

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.386

0.597

-1.56, 0.785

0.521

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.876

0.845

-0.780, 2.53

0.304

Pseudo R square

0.013

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.9

0.820

28.3, 31.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.05

1.159

-1.22, 3.33

0.366

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.316

0.811

-1.27, 1.91

0.698

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.406

1.147

-1.84, 2.65

0.725

Pseudo R square

0.017

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.9

0.329

11.3, 12.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.432

0.466

-0.480, 1.34

0.356

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.633

0.319

-1.26, -0.009

0.053

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.533

0.451

-0.351, 1.42

0.243

Pseudo R square

0.035

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.5

0.516

16.5, 18.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.162

0.730

-1.27, 1.59

0.825

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.912

0.551

-1.99, 0.168

0.105

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.61

0.780

0.084, 3.14

0.044

Pseudo R square

0.028

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.0

0.449

12.1, 13.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.405

0.635

-0.840, 1.65

0.525

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.454

0.408

-0.346, 1.25

0.272

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.534

0.577

-0.597, 1.67

0.360

Pseudo R square

0.029

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.5

0.367

9.80, 11.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.05

0.518

-2.07, -0.038

0.045

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.634

0.467

-1.55, 0.281

0.181

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.50

0.660

0.209, 2.80

0.027

Pseudo R square

0.039

symptom

(Intercept)

31.2

1.607

28.1, 34.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-2.22

2.272

-6.67, 2.24

0.332

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.066

1.168

-2.22, 2.36

0.955

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.702

1.652

-3.94, 2.54

0.673

Pseudo R square

0.016

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.7

0.812

21.1, 24.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.243

1.148

-2.01, 2.49

0.833

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.723

0.621

-1.94, 0.495

0.251

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.446

0.879

-2.17, 1.28

0.614

Pseudo R square

0.009

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

25.5

0.979

23.6, 27.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.622

1.384

-2.09, 3.33

0.655

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.06

0.895

-2.81, 0.699

0.245

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.740

1.266

-1.74, 3.22

0.562

Pseudo R square

0.009

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.2

1.136

17.0, 21.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

3.11

1.607

-0.042, 6.26

0.056

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.745

1.169

-1.55, 3.04

0.527

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.28

1.653

-4.52, 1.96

0.441

Pseudo R square

0.038

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.7

0.625

9.48, 11.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.00

0.883

-0.731, 2.73

0.261

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.482

0.533

-0.563, 1.53

0.371

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.19

0.754

-2.67, 0.287

0.122

Pseudo R square

0.012

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.2

0.929

13.3, 17.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.595

1.313

-3.17, 1.98

0.652

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.08

0.894

-0.668, 2.83

0.232

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.56

1.264

-4.04, 0.912

0.223

Pseudo R square

0.015

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.8

1.045

19.7, 23.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.05

1.478

-1.84, 3.95

0.478

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.643

1.024

-1.36, 2.65

0.533

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.52

1.448

-4.36, 1.32

0.300

Pseudo R square

0.005

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.3

0.713

14.9, 17.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.595

1.009

-1.38, 2.57

0.557

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.163

0.726

-1.26, 1.59

0.823

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.571

1.027

-1.44, 2.58

0.581

Pseudo R square

0.012

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.3

0.496

12.3, 14.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.865

0.702

-0.511, 2.24

0.221

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.940

0.551

-2.02, 0.141

0.095

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.849

0.780

-0.680, 2.38

0.282

Pseudo R square

0.046

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.6

0.476

15.7, 17.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.27

0.673

-0.049, 2.59

0.063

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.276

0.453

-0.611, 1.16

0.545

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.087

0.640

-1.34, 1.17

0.892

Pseudo R square

0.046

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

11.8

0.507

10.8, 12.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.03

0.717

0.622, 3.43

0.006

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.914

0.482

-0.031, 1.86

0.065

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.935

0.682

-2.27, 0.401

0.177

Pseudo R square

0.080

els

(Intercept)

28.5

0.883

26.7, 30.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

3.30

1.248

0.851, 5.74

0.010

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.17

0.767

-0.337, 2.67

0.136

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.975

1.084

-3.10, 1.15

0.374

Pseudo R square

0.076

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.9

1.560

24.9, 31.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.70

2.206

-6.03, 2.62

0.442

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.755

1.154

-1.51, 3.02

0.516

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.27

1.632

-4.47, 1.93

0.440

Pseudo R square

0.014

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.8

0.811

12.2, 15.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.38

1.147

-0.870, 3.63

0.233

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.290

0.774

-1.23, 1.81

0.710

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.251

1.095

-1.90, 2.40

0.820

Pseudo R square

0.023

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

16.1

0.652

14.8, 17.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.03

0.923

-0.781, 2.84

0.269

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.372

0.598

-0.800, 1.54

0.537

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.620

0.846

-2.28, 1.04

0.467

Pseudo R square

0.012

shs

(Intercept)

29.9

1.381

27.2, 32.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.41

1.953

-1.42, 6.23

0.222

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.663

1.248

-1.78, 3.11

0.598

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.360

1.764

-3.82, 3.10

0.840

Pseudo R square

0.019

esteem

(Intercept)

12.9

0.233

12.4, 13.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.459

0.330

-1.11, 0.187

0.167

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.152

0.353

-0.540, 0.844

0.669

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.182

0.499

-0.796, 1.16

0.718

Pseudo R square

0.027

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.8

0.551

13.8, 15.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.135

0.779

-1.39, 1.66

0.863

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.396

0.656

-1.68, 0.891

0.549

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.336

0.928

-1.48, 2.16

0.719

Pseudo R square

0.003

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.4

0.659

12.1, 14.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.162

0.932

-1.66, 1.99

0.862

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.079

0.732

-1.51, 1.36

0.915

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.058

1.036

-1.97, 2.09

0.955

Pseudo R square

0.001

mlq

(Intercept)

28.2

1.095

26.1, 30.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.297

1.549

-2.74, 3.33

0.848

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.475

1.246

-2.92, 1.97

0.705

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.387

1.763

-3.07, 3.84

0.827

Pseudo R square

0.002

empower

(Intercept)

19.1

0.655

17.8, 20.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.919

0.926

-0.897, 2.73

0.324

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.255

0.574

-1.38, 0.870

0.659

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.393

0.812

-1.98, 1.20

0.631

Pseudo R square

0.013

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.3

0.416

13.5, 15.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.703

0.589

-0.452, 1.86

0.236

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.165

0.551

-0.915, 1.24

0.766

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.337

0.779

-1.86, 1.19

0.667

Pseudo R square

0.014

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

12.2

0.514

11.2, 13.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.92

0.728

-3.34, -0.493

0.010

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.518

0.536

-1.57, 0.533

0.339

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.683

0.758

-0.804, 2.17

0.373

Pseudo R square

0.071

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.4

0.600

9.26, 11.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.03

0.849

-2.69, 0.636

0.230

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.221

0.509

-0.776, 1.22

0.666

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.20

0.720

-2.61, 0.207

0.102

Pseudo R square

0.046

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.3

0.622

9.05, 11.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.51

0.879

-3.24, 0.210

0.089

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.249

0.620

-1.47, 0.967

0.690

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.553

0.877

-2.27, 1.17

0.532

Pseudo R square

0.054

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.59

0.639

7.34, 9.85

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.703

0.903

-2.47, 1.07

0.439

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.02

0.514

0.015, 2.03

0.053

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.96

0.727

-3.39, -0.537

0.010

Pseudo R square

0.045

sss

(Intercept)

29.3

1.728

25.9, 32.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-3.24

2.444

-8.03, 1.55

0.188

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.06

1.327

-1.54, 3.66

0.428

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.77

1.876

-7.45, -0.092

0.051

Pseudo R square

0.053

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.34) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.11 (95% CI [2.72, 3.50], t(108) = 15.69, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.60], t(108) = 0.19, p = 0.847; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.72], t(108) = 0.57, p = 0.572; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.60])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.93], t(108) = 0.32, p = 0.747; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.77])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.43) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.95 (95% CI [17.09, 18.80], t(108) = 41.05, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-1.08, 1.35], t(108) = 0.22, p = 0.827; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.51])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.56, 0.78], t(108) = -0.65, p = 0.519; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.88, 95% CI [-0.78, 2.53], t(108) = 1.04, p = 0.300; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.96])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.89 (95% CI [28.29, 31.50], t(108) = 36.47, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-1.22, 3.33], t(108) = 0.91, p = 0.363; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.67])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.27, 1.91], t(108) = 0.39, p = 0.696; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-1.84, 2.65], t(108) = 0.35, p = 0.723; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.53])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.92 (95% CI [11.27, 12.56], t(108) = 36.21, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.48, 1.34], t(108) = 0.93, p = 0.353; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.67])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.26, -8.62e-03], t(108) = -1.99, p = 0.047; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.62, -4.28e-03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.42], t(108) = 1.18, p = 0.237; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.70])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.49 (95% CI [16.48, 18.50], t(108) = 33.89, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.27, 1.59], t(108) = 0.22, p = 0.824; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.91, 95% CI [-1.99, 0.17], t(108) = -1.65, p = 0.098; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.05])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.61, 95% CI [0.08, 3.14], t(108) = 2.07, p = 0.039; Std. beta = 0.51, 95% CI [0.03, 0.99])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.97 (95% CI [12.09, 13.85], t(108) = 28.88, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.84, 1.65], t(108) = 0.64, p = 0.523; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.58])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.25], t(108) = 1.11, p = 0.266; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.67], t(108) = 0.93, p = 0.355; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.59])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.53) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.51 (95% CI [9.80, 11.23], t(108) = 28.68, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.05, 95% CI [-2.07, -0.04], t(108) = -2.03, p = 0.042; Std. beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-0.93, -0.02])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.55, 0.28], t(108) = -1.36, p = 0.175; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.13])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.50, 95% CI [0.21, 2.80], t(108) = 2.28, p = 0.023; Std. beta = 0.67, 95% CI [0.09, 1.25])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.24 (95% CI [28.09, 34.39], t(108) = 19.44, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.22, 95% CI [-6.67, 2.24], t(108) = -0.98, p = 0.329; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.23])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-2.22, 2.36], t(108) = 0.06, p = 0.955; Std. beta = 6.73e-03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-3.94, 2.54], t(108) = -0.43, p = 0.671; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.26])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.90e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.68 (95% CI [21.08, 24.27], t(108) = 27.94, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-2.01, 2.49], t(108) = 0.21, p = 0.832; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.51])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.72, 95% CI [-1.94, 0.50], t(108) = -1.16, p = 0.245; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.10])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-2.17, 1.28], t(108) = -0.51, p = 0.611; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.26])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.38e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.51 (95% CI [23.60, 27.43], t(108) = 26.07, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-2.09, 3.33], t(108) = 0.45, p = 0.653; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.57])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.06, 95% CI [-2.81, 0.70], t(108) = -1.18, p = 0.238; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.12])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-1.74, 3.22], t(108) = 0.58, p = 0.559; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.55])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.22 (95% CI [16.99, 21.44], t(108) = 16.91, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.11, 95% CI [-0.04, 6.26], t(108) = 1.93, p = 0.053; Std. beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-5.94e-03, 0.89])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-1.55, 3.04], t(108) = 0.64, p = 0.524; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.43])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.28, 95% CI [-4.52, 1.96], t(108) = -0.78, p = 0.437; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.70 (95% CI [9.48, 11.93], t(108) = 17.13, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.73, 2.73], t(108) = 1.13, p = 0.258; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.73])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-0.56, 1.53], t(108) = 0.90, p = 0.366; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.19, 95% CI [-2.67, 0.29], t(108) = -1.58, p = 0.114; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.08])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.16 (95% CI [13.34, 16.98], t(108) = 16.33, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-3.17, 1.98], t(108) = -0.45, p = 0.651; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-0.67, 2.83], t(108) = 1.21, p = 0.225; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.51])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.56, 95% CI [-4.04, 0.91], t(108) = -1.24, p = 0.216; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.17])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.03e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.76 (95% CI [19.71, 23.80], t(108) = 20.82, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-1.84, 3.95], t(108) = 0.71, p = 0.476; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.62])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-1.36, 2.65], t(108) = 0.63, p = 0.530; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.42])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.52, 95% CI [-4.36, 1.32], t(108) = -1.05, p = 0.295; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.21])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.32 (95% CI [14.93, 17.72], t(108) = 22.89, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-1.38, 2.57], t(108) = 0.59, p = 0.555; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.60])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.26, 1.59], t(108) = 0.22, p = 0.822; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-1.44, 2.58], t(108) = 0.56, p = 0.578; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.60])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.30 (95% CI [12.32, 14.27], t(108) = 26.80, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.51, 2.24], t(108) = 1.23, p = 0.218; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.73])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.94, 95% CI [-2.02, 0.14], t(108) = -1.70, p = 0.088; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.05])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.68, 2.38], t(108) = 1.09, p = 0.276; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.77])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.65 (95% CI [15.72, 17.58], t(108) = 34.97, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.27, 95% CI [-0.05, 2.59], t(108) = 1.89, p = 0.059; Std. beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.87])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.16], t(108) = 0.61, p = 0.542; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-1.34, 1.17], t(108) = -0.14, p = 0.892; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.39])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.08. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.81 (95% CI [10.82, 12.80], t(108) = 23.30, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.03, 95% CI [0.62, 3.43], t(108) = 2.83, p = 0.005; Std. beta = 0.64, 95% CI [0.20, 1.08])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.86], t(108) = 1.90, p = 0.058; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-9.70e-03, 0.58])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.94, 95% CI [-2.27, 0.40], t(108) = -1.37, p = 0.170; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.13])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.08. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.46 (95% CI [26.73, 30.19], t(108) = 32.25, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.30, 95% CI [0.85, 5.74], t(108) = 2.64, p = 0.008; Std. beta = 0.59, 95% CI [0.15, 1.03])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.17, 95% CI [-0.34, 2.67], t(108) = 1.52, p = 0.128; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.48])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.97, 95% CI [-3.10, 1.15], t(108) = -0.90, p = 0.369; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.21])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.95 (95% CI [24.89, 31.00], t(108) = 17.92, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.70, 95% CI [-6.03, 2.62], t(108) = -0.77, p = 0.440; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.27])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-1.51, 3.02], t(108) = 0.65, p = 0.513; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.27, 95% CI [-4.47, 1.93], t(108) = -0.78, p = 0.435; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.20])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.84 (95% CI [12.25, 15.43], t(108) = 17.06, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.38, 95% CI [-0.87, 3.63], t(108) = 1.20, p = 0.230; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.74])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-1.23, 1.81], t(108) = 0.37, p = 0.708; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-1.90, 2.40], t(108) = 0.23, p = 0.819; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.49])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.11 (95% CI [14.83, 17.39], t(108) = 24.69, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [-0.78, 2.84], t(108) = 1.11, p = 0.266; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.73])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.80, 1.54], t(108) = 0.62, p = 0.534; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-2.28, 1.04], t(108) = -0.73, p = 0.463; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.27])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.95 (95% CI [27.24, 32.65], t(108) = 21.68, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.41, 95% CI [-1.42, 6.23], t(108) = 1.23, p = 0.218; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.75])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-1.78, 3.11], t(108) = 0.53, p = 0.595; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-3.82, 3.10], t(108) = -0.20, p = 0.839; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.37])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.27) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.86 (95% CI [12.41, 13.32], t(108) = 55.18, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.11, 0.19], t(108) = -1.39, p = 0.163; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.13])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.84], t(108) = 0.43, p = 0.667; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.60])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.80, 1.16], t(108) = 0.36, p = 0.716; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.82])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.07e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.84 (95% CI [13.76, 15.92], t(108) = 26.95, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-1.39, 1.66], t(108) = 0.17, p = 0.862; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-1.68, 0.89], t(108) = -0.60, p = 0.546; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.48, 2.16], t(108) = 0.36, p = 0.717; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.65])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.70e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.41 (95% CI [12.11, 14.70], t(108) = 20.35, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.66, 1.99], t(108) = 0.17, p = 0.862; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.51, 1.36], t(108) = -0.11, p = 0.915; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-1.97, 2.09], t(108) = 0.06, p = 0.955; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.53])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.67e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.24 (95% CI [26.10, 30.39], t(108) = 25.79, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-2.74, 3.33], t(108) = 0.19, p = 0.848; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-2.92, 1.97], t(108) = -0.38, p = 0.703; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-3.07, 3.84], t(108) = 0.22, p = 0.826; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.58])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.08 (95% CI [17.80, 20.37], t(108) = 29.13, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-0.90, 2.73], t(108) = 0.99, p = 0.321; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.69])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.38, 0.87], t(108) = -0.44, p = 0.657; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.98, 1.20], t(108) = -0.48, p = 0.628; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.30])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.47) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.32 (95% CI [13.51, 15.14], t(108) = 34.40, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.45, 1.86], t(108) = 1.19, p = 0.233; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.74])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.91, 1.24], t(108) = 0.30, p = 0.765; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.50])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-1.86, 1.19], t(108) = -0.43, p = 0.665; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.47])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.22 (95% CI [11.21, 13.22], t(108) = 23.75, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.92, 95% CI [-3.34, -0.49], t(108) = -2.64, p = 0.008; Std. beta = -0.60, 95% CI [-1.04, -0.15])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-1.57, 0.53], t(108) = -0.97, p = 0.334; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.17])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-0.80, 2.17], t(108) = 0.90, p = 0.368; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.68])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.43 (95% CI [9.26, 11.61], t(108) = 17.38, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.03, 95% CI [-2.69, 0.64], t(108) = -1.21, p = 0.226; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.17])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.78, 1.22], t(108) = 0.43, p = 0.664; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.20, 95% CI [-2.61, 0.21], t(108) = -1.67, p = 0.094; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.05])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.27 (95% CI [9.05, 11.49], t(108) = 16.52, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.51, 95% CI [-3.24, 0.21], t(108) = -1.72, p = 0.085; Std. beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.05])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-1.47, 0.97], t(108) = -0.40, p = 0.688; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.55, 95% CI [-2.27, 1.17], t(108) = -0.63, p = 0.529; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.30])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.59 (95% CI [7.34, 9.85], t(108) = 13.46, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-2.47, 1.07], t(108) = -0.78, p = 0.436; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.28])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [0.01, 2.03], t(108) = 1.99, p = 0.047; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [3.80e-03, 0.53])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.96, 95% CI [-3.39, -0.54], t(108) = -2.70, p = 0.007; Std. beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-0.88, -0.14])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.30 (95% CI [25.91, 32.68], t(108) = 16.95, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.24, 95% CI [-8.03, 1.55], t(108) = -1.33, p = 0.185; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.14])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.06, 95% CI [-1.54, 3.66], t(108) = 0.80, p = 0.424; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.77, 95% CI [-7.45, -0.09], t(108) = -2.01, p = 0.045; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.69, -8.58e-03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

364.816

373.024

-179.408

358.816

recovery_stage_a

random

6

369.286

385.703

-178.643

357.286

1.530

3

0.675

recovery_stage_b

null

3

542.424

550.633

-268.212

536.424

recovery_stage_b

random

6

546.757

563.174

-267.379

534.757

1.667

3

0.644

ras_confidence

null

3

665.000

673.208

-329.500

659.000

ras_confidence

random

6

668.883

685.300

-328.441

656.883

2.117

3

0.548

ras_willingness

null

3

459.040

467.248

-226.520

453.040

ras_willingness

random

6

459.345

475.763

-223.673

447.345

5.695

3

0.127

ras_goal

null

3

568.026

576.235

-281.013

562.026

ras_goal

random

6

568.796

585.213

-278.398

556.796

5.230

3

0.156

ras_reliance

null

3

527.416

535.625

-260.708

521.416

ras_reliance

random

6

525.562

541.980

-256.781

513.562

7.854

3

0.049

ras_domination

null

3

503.246

511.454

-248.623

497.246

ras_domination

random

6

502.451

518.868

-245.226

490.451

6.795

3

0.079

symptom

null

3

794.945

803.154

-394.472

788.945

symptom

random

6

799.422

815.839

-393.711

787.422

1.523

3

0.677

slof_work

null

3

646.475

654.683

-320.237

640.475

slof_work

random

6

647.615

664.033

-317.808

635.615

4.859

3

0.182

slof_relationship

null

3

699.561

707.769

-346.780

693.561

slof_relationship

random

6

703.625

720.042

-345.813

691.625

1.935

3

0.586

satisfaction

null

3

743.957

752.166

-368.979

737.957

satisfaction

random

6

746.110

762.527

-367.055

734.110

3.847

3

0.278

mhc_emotional

null

3

593.388

601.596

-293.694

587.388

mhc_emotional

random

6

596.146

612.563

-292.073

584.146

3.241

3

0.356

mhc_social

null

3

691.850

700.059

-342.925

685.850

mhc_social

random

6

695.345

711.762

-341.673

683.345

2.505

3

0.474

mhc_psychological

null

3

718.905

727.114

-356.453

712.905

mhc_psychological

random

6

723.550

739.967

-355.775

711.550

1.356

3

0.716

resilisnce

null

3

634.913

643.121

-314.456

628.913

resilisnce

random

6

639.164

655.582

-313.582

627.164

1.748

3

0.626

social_provision

null

3

562.428

570.637

-278.214

556.428

social_provision

random

6

562.621

579.038

-275.310

550.621

5.808

3

0.121

els_value_living

null

3

540.454

548.662

-267.227

534.454

els_value_living

random

6

542.151

558.568

-265.075

530.151

4.303

3

0.231

els_life_fulfill

null

3

560.445

568.654

-277.223

554.445

els_life_fulfill

random

6

556.453

572.870

-272.226

544.453

9.993

3

0.019

els

null

3

678.785

686.993

-336.392

672.785

els

random

6

676.219

692.636

-332.110

664.219

8.565

3

0.036

social_connect

null

3

789.549

797.758

-391.775

783.549

social_connect

random

6

793.961

810.378

-390.980

781.961

1.588

3

0.662

shs_agency

null

3

660.340

668.548

-327.170

654.340

shs_agency

random

6

663.922

680.340

-325.961

651.922

2.417

3

0.490

shs_pathway

null

3

606.774

614.982

-300.387

600.774

shs_pathway

random

6

611.259

627.676

-299.629

599.259

1.515

3

0.679

shs

null

3

777.072

785.281

-385.536

771.072

shs

random

6

781.198

797.615

-384.599

769.198

1.874

3

0.599

esteem

null

3

405.540

413.749

-199.770

399.540

esteem

random

6

408.460

424.877

-198.230

396.460

3.080

3

0.379

mlq_search

null

3

585.528

593.737

-289.764

579.528

mlq_search

random

6

591.032

607.449

-289.516

579.032

0.496

3

0.920

mlq_presence

null

3

621.279

629.487

-307.639

615.279

mlq_presence

random

6

627.221

643.639

-307.611

615.221

0.057

3

0.996

mlq

null

3

738.974

747.182

-366.487

732.974

mlq

random

6

744.732

761.150

-366.366

732.732

0.241

3

0.971

empower

null

3

605.274

613.483

-299.637

599.274

empower

random

6

608.931

625.348

-298.465

596.931

2.344

3

0.504

ismi_resistance

null

3

529.306

537.514

-261.653

523.306

ismi_resistance

random

6

533.840

550.257

-260.920

521.840

1.465

3

0.690

ismi_discrimation

null

3

567.533

575.741

-280.766

561.533

ismi_discrimation

random

6

566.388

582.805

-277.194

554.388

7.145

3

0.067

sss_affective

null

3

587.208

595.416

-290.604

581.208

sss_affective

random

6

586.490

602.907

-287.245

574.490

6.717

3

0.081

sss_behavior

null

3

606.310

614.519

-300.155

600.310

sss_behavior

random

6

606.477

622.894

-297.238

594.477

5.833

3

0.120

sss_cognitive

null

3

599.592

607.800

-296.796

593.592

sss_cognitive

random

6

596.744

613.161

-292.372

584.744

8.847

3

0.031

sss

null

3

822.189

830.398

-408.095

816.189

sss

random

6

820.167

836.584

-404.083

808.167

8.022

3

0.046

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

37

3.11 ± 1.20

37

3.16 ± 1.20

0.847

-0.055

recovery_stage_a

2nd

20

3.27 ± 1.19

-0.164

20

3.46 ± 1.19

-0.297

0.623

-0.187

recovery_stage_b

1st

37

17.95 ± 2.66

37

18.08 ± 2.66

0.827

-0.067

recovery_stage_b

2nd

20

17.56 ± 2.57

0.190

20

18.57 ± 2.57

-0.242

0.217

-0.498

ras_confidence

1st

37

29.89 ± 4.99

37

30.95 ± 4.99

0.366

-0.397

ras_confidence

2nd

20

30.21 ± 4.37

-0.119

20

31.67 ± 4.37

-0.273

0.293

-0.551

ras_willingness

1st

37

11.92 ± 2.00

37

12.35 ± 2.00

0.356

-0.415

ras_willingness

2nd

20

11.29 ± 1.75

0.609

20

12.25 ± 1.75

0.096

0.083

-0.928

ras_goal

1st

37

17.49 ± 3.14

37

17.65 ± 3.14

0.825

-0.089

ras_goal

2nd

20

16.57 ± 2.81

0.503

20

18.35 ± 2.81

-0.386

0.048

-0.978

ras_reliance

1st

37

12.97 ± 2.73

37

13.38 ± 2.73

0.525

-0.305

ras_reliance

2nd

20

13.43 ± 2.34

-0.342

20

14.37 ± 2.34

-0.744

0.208

-0.708

ras_domination

1st

37

10.51 ± 2.23

37

9.46 ± 2.23

0.045

0.672

ras_domination

2nd

20

9.88 ± 2.11

0.404

20

10.33 ± 2.11

-0.555

0.502

-0.286

symptom

1st

37

31.24 ± 9.77

37

29.03 ± 9.77

0.332

0.590

symptom

2nd

20

31.31 ± 7.99

-0.018

20

28.39 ± 7.99

0.169

0.251

0.776

slof_work

1st

37

22.68 ± 4.94

37

22.92 ± 4.94

0.833

-0.121

slof_work

2nd

20

21.95 ± 4.07

0.361

20

21.75 ± 4.07

0.584

0.875

0.101

slof_relationship

1st

37

25.51 ± 5.95

37

26.14 ± 5.95

0.655

-0.213

slof_relationship

2nd

20

24.46 ± 5.11

0.363

20

25.82 ± 5.11

0.109

0.402

-0.467

satisfaction

1st

37

19.22 ± 6.91

37

22.32 ± 6.91

0.056

-0.811

satisfaction

2nd

20

19.96 ± 6.13

-0.194

20

21.79 ± 6.13

0.140

0.348

-0.476

mhc_emotional

1st

37

10.70 ± 3.80

37

11.70 ± 3.80

0.261

-0.579

mhc_emotional

2nd

20

11.18 ± 3.21

-0.279

20

10.99 ± 3.21

0.410

0.851

0.111

mhc_social

1st

37

15.16 ± 5.65

37

14.57 ± 5.65

0.652

0.204

mhc_social

2nd

20

16.25 ± 4.92

-0.371

20

14.09 ± 4.92

0.165

0.168

0.740

mhc_psychological

1st

37

21.76 ± 6.36

37

22.81 ± 6.36

0.478

-0.315

mhc_psychological

2nd

20

22.40 ± 5.56

-0.192

20

21.94 ± 5.56

0.262

0.792

0.139

resilisnce

1st

37

16.32 ± 4.34

37

16.92 ± 4.34

0.557

-0.250

resilisnce

2nd

20

16.49 ± 3.83

-0.069

20

17.65 ± 3.83

-0.309

0.338

-0.490

social_provision

1st

37

13.30 ± 3.02

37

14.16 ± 3.02

0.221

-0.475

social_provision

2nd

20

12.36 ± 2.74

0.516

20

14.07 ± 2.74

0.050

0.050

-0.941

els_value_living

1st

37

16.65 ± 2.90

37

17.92 ± 2.90

0.063

-0.860

els_value_living

2nd

20

16.92 ± 2.51

-0.187

20

18.11 ± 2.51

-0.128

0.139

-0.801

els_life_fulfill

1st

37

11.81 ± 3.08

37

13.84 ± 3.08

0.006

-1.289

els_life_fulfill

2nd

20

12.73 ± 2.67

-0.581

20

13.82 ± 2.67

0.013

0.199

-0.694

els

1st

37

28.46 ± 5.37

37

31.76 ± 5.37

0.010

-1.326

els

2nd

20

29.63 ± 4.55

-0.469

20

31.95 ± 4.55

-0.077

0.110

-0.934

social_connect

1st

37

27.95 ± 9.49

37

26.24 ± 9.49

0.442

0.458

social_connect

2nd

20

28.70 ± 7.78

-0.203

20

25.73 ± 7.78

0.139

0.229

0.801

shs_agency

1st

37

13.84 ± 4.93

37

15.22 ± 4.93

0.233

-0.546

shs_agency

2nd

20

14.13 ± 4.28

-0.115

20

15.76 ± 4.28

-0.214

0.232

-0.645

shs_pathway

1st

37

16.11 ± 3.97

37

17.14 ± 3.97

0.269

-0.528

shs_pathway

2nd

20

16.48 ± 3.41

-0.191

20

16.89 ± 3.41

0.128

0.707

-0.209

shs

1st

37

29.95 ± 8.40

37

32.35 ± 8.40

0.222

-0.593

shs

2nd

20

30.61 ± 7.19

-0.163

20

32.65 ± 7.19

-0.075

0.370

-0.504

esteem

1st

37

12.86 ± 1.42

37

12.41 ± 1.42

0.166

0.375

esteem

2nd

20

13.02 ± 1.41

-0.124

20

12.74 ± 1.41

-0.272

0.535

0.226

mlq_search

1st

37

14.84 ± 3.35

37

14.97 ± 3.35

0.863

-0.062

mlq_search

2nd

20

14.44 ± 3.10

0.181

20

14.91 ± 3.10

0.027

0.632

-0.216

mlq_presence

1st

37

13.41 ± 4.01

37

13.57 ± 4.01

0.862

-0.067

mlq_presence

2nd

20

13.33 ± 3.63

0.032

20

13.55 ± 3.63

0.008

0.848

-0.091

mlq

1st

37

28.24 ± 6.66

37

28.54 ± 6.66

0.848

-0.072

mlq

2nd

20

27.77 ± 6.08

0.115

20

28.45 ± 6.08

0.021

0.723

-0.166

empower

1st

37

19.08 ± 3.98

37

20.00 ± 3.98

0.324

-0.493

empower

2nd

20

18.83 ± 3.39

0.137

20

19.35 ± 3.39

0.348

0.624

-0.282

ismi_resistance

1st

37

14.32 ± 2.53

37

15.03 ± 2.53

0.236

-0.378

ismi_resistance

2nd

20

14.49 ± 2.43

-0.089

20

14.85 ± 2.43

0.093

0.635

-0.196

ismi_discrimation

1st

37

12.22 ± 3.13

37

10.30 ± 3.13

0.010

1.090

ismi_discrimation

2nd

20

11.70 ± 2.78

0.294

20

10.46 ± 2.78

-0.093

0.163

0.702

sss_affective

1st

37

10.43 ± 3.65

37

9.41 ± 3.65

0.230

0.623

sss_affective

2nd

20

10.65 ± 3.08

-0.134

20

8.42 ± 3.08

0.596

0.024

1.353

sss_behavior

1st

37

10.27 ± 3.78

37

8.76 ± 3.78

0.089

0.745

sss_behavior

2nd

20

10.02 ± 3.32

0.123

20

7.95 ± 3.32

0.395

0.052

1.018

sss_cognitive

1st

37

8.59 ± 3.88

37

7.89 ± 3.88

0.439

0.423

sss_cognitive

2nd

20

9.62 ± 3.24

-0.615

20

6.95 ± 3.24

0.566

0.011

1.604

sss

1st

37

29.30 ± 10.51

37

26.05 ± 10.51

0.188

0.758

sss

2nd

20

30.36 ± 8.68

-0.248

20

23.35 ± 8.68

0.633

0.012

1.639

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(102.54) = 0.19, p = 0.847, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.50 to 0.61)

2st

t(109.51) = 0.49, p = 0.623, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.56 to 0.93)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(98.71) = 0.22, p = 0.827, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.09 to 1.36)

2st

t(109.53) = 1.24, p = 0.217, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.60 to 2.62)

ras_confidence

1st

t(84.20) = 0.91, p = 0.366, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-1.25 to 3.36)

2st

t(109.21) = 1.06, p = 0.293, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-1.28 to 4.20)

ras_willingness

1st

t(83.59) = 0.93, p = 0.356, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.49 to 1.36)

2st

t(108.92) = 1.75, p = 0.083, Cohen d = -0.93, 95% CI (-0.13 to 2.06)

ras_goal

1st

t(86.66) = 0.22, p = 0.825, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.29 to 1.61)

2st

t(109.86) = 2.00, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.98, 95% CI (0.01 to 3.54)

ras_reliance

1st

t(81.98) = 0.64, p = 0.525, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.86 to 1.67)

2st

t(107.81) = 1.27, p = 0.208, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.41)

ras_domination

1st

t(94.52) = -2.03, p = 0.045, Cohen d = 0.67, 95% CI (-2.08 to -0.02)

2st

t(109.73) = 0.67, p = 0.502, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.87 to 1.77)

symptom

1st

t(78.03) = -0.98, p = 0.332, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-6.74 to 2.31)

2st

t(101.46) = -1.16, p = 0.251, Cohen d = 0.78, 95% CI (-7.93 to 2.09)

slof_work

1st

t(78.76) = 0.21, p = 0.833, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.04 to 2.53)

2st

t(103.17) = -0.16, p = 0.875, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-2.76 to 2.35)

slof_relationship

1st

t(82.15) = 0.45, p = 0.655, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-2.13 to 3.38)

2st

t(107.95) = 0.84, p = 0.402, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-1.84 to 4.57)

satisfaction

1st

t(85.37) = 1.93, p = 0.056, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (-0.09 to 6.30)

2st

t(109.60) = 0.94, p = 0.348, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-2.01 to 5.66)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(80.66) = 1.13, p = 0.261, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.76 to 2.76)

2st

t(106.38) = -0.19, p = 0.851, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-2.20 to 1.82)

mhc_social

1st

t(83.41) = -0.45, p = 0.652, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-3.21 to 2.02)

2st

t(108.83) = -1.39, p = 0.168, Cohen d = 0.74, 95% CI (-5.24 to 0.92)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(83.93) = 0.71, p = 0.478, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-1.88 to 3.99)

2st

t(109.09) = -0.26, p = 0.792, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-3.95 to 3.02)

resilisnce

1st

t(85.05) = 0.59, p = 0.557, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.41 to 2.60)

2st

t(109.51) = 0.96, p = 0.338, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-1.24 to 3.57)

social_provision

1st

t(88.12) = 1.23, p = 0.221, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.26)

2st

t(109.98) = 1.98, p = 0.050, Cohen d = -0.94, 95% CI (-0.00 to 3.43)

els_value_living

1st

t(83.11) = 1.89, p = 0.063, Cohen d = -0.86, 95% CI (-0.07 to 2.61)

2st

t(108.65) = 1.49, p = 0.139, Cohen d = -0.80, 95% CI (-0.39 to 2.76)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(83.11) = 2.83, p = 0.006, Cohen d = -1.29, 95% CI (0.60 to 3.45)

2st

t(108.65) = 1.29, p = 0.199, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (-0.58 to 2.77)

els

1st

t(81.00) = 2.64, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -1.33, 95% CI (0.81 to 5.78)

2st

t(106.81) = 1.61, p = 0.110, Cohen d = -0.93, 95% CI (-0.53 to 5.18)

social_connect

1st

t(78.27) = -0.77, p = 0.442, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-6.09 to 2.69)

2st

t(102.05) = -1.21, p = 0.229, Cohen d = 0.80, 95% CI (-7.85 to 1.90)

shs_agency

1st

t(83.21) = 1.20, p = 0.233, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.90 to 3.66)

2st

t(108.71) = 1.20, p = 0.232, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (-1.06 to 4.31)

shs_pathway

1st

t(82.19) = 1.11, p = 0.269, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.81 to 2.86)

2st

t(107.99) = 0.38, p = 0.707, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.73 to 2.54)

shs

1st

t(81.85) = 1.23, p = 0.222, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-1.48 to 6.29)

2st

t(107.70) = 0.90, p = 0.370, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-2.46 to 6.55)

esteem

1st

t(105.45) = -1.39, p = 0.166, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.11 to 0.19)

2st

t(109.62) = -0.62, p = 0.535, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-1.16 to 0.61)

mlq_search

1st

t(91.15) = 0.17, p = 0.863, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.41 to 1.68)

2st

t(109.94) = 0.48, p = 0.632, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.47 to 2.42)

mlq_presence

1st

t(88.14) = 0.17, p = 0.862, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.69 to 2.01)

2st

t(109.98) = 0.19, p = 0.848, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-2.06 to 2.50)

mlq

1st

t(89.08) = 0.19, p = 0.848, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.78 to 3.37)

2st

t(110.00) = 0.36, p = 0.723, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-3.13 to 4.50)

empower

1st

t(81.19) = 0.99, p = 0.324, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.92 to 2.76)

2st

t(107.02) = 0.49, p = 0.624, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-1.60 to 2.65)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(96.73) = 1.19, p = 0.236, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.87)

2st

t(109.61) = 0.48, p = 0.635, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.89)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(85.81) = -2.64, p = 0.010, Cohen d = 1.09, 95% CI (-3.37 to -0.47)

2st

t(109.71) = -1.40, p = 0.163, Cohen d = 0.70, 95% CI (-2.98 to 0.51)

sss_affective

1st

t(80.52) = -1.21, p = 0.230, Cohen d = 0.62, 95% CI (-2.72 to 0.66)

2st

t(106.20) = -2.29, p = 0.024, Cohen d = 1.35, 95% CI (-4.16 to -0.30)

sss_behavior

1st

t(84.44) = -1.72, p = 0.089, Cohen d = 0.75, 95% CI (-3.26 to 0.23)

2st

t(109.31) = -1.97, p = 0.052, Cohen d = 1.02, 95% CI (-4.15 to 0.02)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(79.57) = -0.78, p = 0.439, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-2.50 to 1.09)

2st

t(104.74) = -2.60, p = 0.011, Cohen d = 1.60, 95% CI (-4.70 to -0.63)

sss

1st

t(78.80) = -1.33, p = 0.188, Cohen d = 0.76, 95% CI (-8.11 to 1.62)

2st

t(103.26) = -2.55, p = 0.012, Cohen d = 1.64, 95% CI (-12.46 to -1.57)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(54.03) = 1.01, p = 0.631, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.29 to 0.87)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(51.46) = 0.81, p = 0.838, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.72 to 1.70)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(43.70) = 0.89, p = 0.760, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.92 to 2.37)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(43.41) = -0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-0.75 to 0.55)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(44.90) = 1.26, p = 0.426, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.42 to 1.82)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(42.64) = 2.41, p = 0.041, Cohen d = -0.74, 95% CI (0.16 to 1.81)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(49.00) = 1.85, p = 0.141, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.08 to 1.81)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(40.78) = -0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-3.00 to 1.73)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(41.12) = -1.88, p = 0.135, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-2.43 to 0.09)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(42.72) = -0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-2.13 to 1.50)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(44.27) = -0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-2.90 to 1.83)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(42.01) = -1.32, p = 0.385, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-1.79 to 0.37)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(43.32) = -0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-2.29 to 1.33)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(43.57) = -0.85, p = 0.799, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-2.95 to 1.20)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(44.11) = 1.01, p = 0.639, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.74 to 2.20)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(45.63) = -0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.21 to 1.03)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(43.17) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.73 to 1.11)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(43.18) = -0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.00 to 0.96)

els

1st vs 2st

t(42.18) = 0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.36 to 1.74)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(40.89) = -0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-2.85 to 1.82)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(43.22) = 0.70, p = 0.981, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.03 to 2.11)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(42.74) = -0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.46 to 0.96)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(42.58) = 0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.22 to 2.83)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(56.40) = 0.94, p = 0.704, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.38 to 1.05)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(47.18) = -0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.39 to 1.27)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(45.64) = -0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.50 to 1.46)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(46.11) = -0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-2.61 to 2.44)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(42.26) = -1.12, p = 0.534, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.81 to 0.51)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(50.26) = -0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.29 to 0.94)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(44.48) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.92 to 1.25)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(41.95) = -1.92, p = 0.122, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-2.01 to 0.05)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(43.82) = -1.29, p = 0.410, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-2.06 to 0.45)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(41.50) = -1.82, p = 0.152, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-1.98 to 0.10)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(41.14) = -2.04, p = 0.097, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-5.40 to -0.02)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(54.03) = 0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.74)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(51.46) = -0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.59 to 0.82)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(43.70) = 0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.33 to 1.96)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(43.41) = -1.98, p = 0.109, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.01)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(44.90) = -1.65, p = 0.214, Cohen d = 0.50, 95% CI (-2.03 to 0.20)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(42.64) = 1.11, p = 0.549, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.37 to 1.28)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(49.00) = -1.35, p = 0.368, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.58 to 0.31)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(40.78) = 0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.30 to 2.43)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(41.12) = -1.16, p = 0.506, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.98 to 0.54)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(42.72) = -1.17, p = 0.493, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-2.87 to 0.76)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(44.27) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.62 to 3.11)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(42.01) = 0.90, p = 0.746, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.56)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(43.32) = 1.21, p = 0.468, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.73 to 2.89)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(43.57) = 0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.72)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(44.11) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.31 to 1.63)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(45.63) = -1.69, p = 0.194, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-2.06 to 0.18)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(43.17) = 0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.64 to 1.19)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(43.18) = 1.89, p = 0.132, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.06 to 1.89)

els

1st vs 2st

t(42.18) = 1.52, p = 0.274, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.39 to 2.72)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(40.89) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.58 to 3.09)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(43.22) = 0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.86)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(42.74) = 0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.84 to 1.58)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(42.58) = 0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.86 to 3.19)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(56.40) = 0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.56 to 0.86)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(47.18) = -0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.72 to 0.93)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(45.64) = -0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.56 to 1.40)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(46.11) = -0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-3.00 to 2.05)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(42.26) = -0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.42 to 0.91)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(50.26) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.95 to 1.28)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(44.48) = -0.96, p = 0.683, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-1.60 to 0.57)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(41.95) = 0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.81 to 1.25)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(43.82) = -0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.01)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(41.50) = 1.98, p = 0.108, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.02 to 2.06)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(41.14) = 0.80, p = 0.860, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.63 to 3.75)

Plot

Clinical significance